Seriously, man. I took a full semester course on exactly what you're talking about, and you could not POSSIBLY be more wrong.
I didn't want to get into the Palestinian Mandate and British rule, etc, because most people aren't familiar with what it said. Unfortunately, you seem to be only partially familiar, which is actually worse.
There were always Jews in the British Mandate, and before that too. When Britain ended its colony, it was proposed that the land be divvied up. Part Arab, part Jewish. The Jews agreed. The Arabs thought they'd destroy Israel and take the land. They lost. People became displaced. That's the Arab's fault. Not Israel.
The Palestinian Mandate included separate states for Jews and Arabs. When the Brittish left, the Jews launched a war and a land grab, or what do you think the 1948 war was?? The Jews played nice until Britain washed their hands of the situation, and then Israel rolled tanks into the Golan heights, the Gaza strip, and the West Bank. The Arabs had rejected the plan because it gave the Jews, who had something on the order of 20% of the population of Palestine, over 50% of the land, and over 75% of the arable land, which they figured would not be a good deal.
Then, there's the 6 days war, where the Jews invaded and captured the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Under what authority?!?
Now the poor Palestinians are used as pawns by the Arabs who know they can't beat Israel in a war.
Because of military sales and financing from the U.S.
It was an Arab political reason to let all the Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon fester. Why should Israel pay the price?
These other countries can't support the influx of refugees. Not to mention, these people's homes have been destroyed and occupied by the IDF and Jewish zionists. Why shouldn't Israel pay the price? If Israel wants to own the land and be the government, it should find it's citizens housing, rather than chase them out.
As to why Muslims blame all their ills on America and Israel the answer is simple. Look at they state they live in. No freedom of speech, no accountable government. Run by an oil rich elite who let their people suffer... so what do the authorities and state controlled papers do - blame it all on Israel - if you blame the outside, maybe people won't question what's happening inside.
Iraq was the most progressive Muslim state, other than Turkey (post Ataturk), in the world until the U.S. invaded. Women had freedom, education, and citizenship. Saudi Arabian citizens enjoy one of the best qualities of life in the world, due to handouts from their super-elite rich government.
Look at a map - compare Israel to the Arab world. Compare the number of Jews to Muslims. Compare the natural resources the Arabs have with that of Israel (I think they have dates there, along with the newest Intel dual processor and advanced HIV research...) and ask yourself if Israel really can be the cause of so many problems in the word?
YES, YES THEY ARE. I'll even say that the Jews deserve a place on the planet where they won't be discriminated against - throughout history, people have persecuted Jews, and I think that there may be some validity to the Zionist arguement that the only safe place for a Jew is a Jewish state. But, given that, why do they think that they are entitled to THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PLACE ON EARTH, even when there are other groups already fighting over it? Why not create a Jewish state in Europe, where most Jews were displaced from? Why intentionally pick a controversial location? If the reason is "Sacred Land" or "History", then what gives them more right than the Arabs?
As far as I see it, the existance of the state of Israel is one of, if not the, major cause for poor relations and tension between "The Western World" and "The Middle East".
I don't know how to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I know we're not going forward - we're going backwards.
The American-influenced world sees the Israeli conflict with very rose colored glasses; as do of course most Jews. I mean no disrespect to Jews or the Jewish religion; however, for starters, what does give Israel the right to exist?
What if the entire population of Native Americans got together, formed a loose government, and took over manhattan? After all, it's their ancestral home, they were displaced by filthy PaleFaces. Do they have a right to create a new state in Manhattan?
Israel was not a state from 1300 B.C. to 1945 A.D. - over 3,000 years. What gives the Jews the right to displace 3,000 years of Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and Arab rule, on a whim, because they feel they're entitled? Because it's sacred ground? It's sacred to the Christians, too (crusades), as well as the Muslims (dome of the rock, among other places).
Yes, I am talking about those "3rd generation refugees". 40% of which are in Jordan, and 38% of which are still in occupied areas of Israel, with 10% of them in both Lebanon and Syria. These people deserve a place to live.
I'm just saying - we always hear about the atrocities that the Palestinians visit on the Israelis. What we don't hear is the reverse of the situation, and we don't hear it because they're classified as military security operations when Israel does them, and Terrorism when Palestinians respond in the only ways available to them.
Open your mind. Israel is not blameless, and years of persecution do not give Jews the right to turn around and do it to others.
This is one of the primary reasons Muslims hate America - we support Israel's actions.
Yeah, I've thought about emmigrating to Canada; but unfortunately, it's one of those situations where there's several things working against me. For one, it would prove the war hawks right when they call me and people like me unpatriotic. For two, it's hard to immegrate to Canada; you have to already have a job in order to get a work visa, and I'm not sure how hard it is to become a naturalized citizen...
I want to say that I respect your opinion before I say anything else, and that you've expressed yourself eloquently.
However, I just want to point out a few things:
1.) So what if islam converts people? Granted, "by the sword" is bad (we'll get to that in a sec), but millions of christians could learn from the fervor with which many muslims follow their religion.
2.) Sectarian violence happens in many other religions. Hindus versus Buddhists, for instance. or, to put it much closer to home, Catholics and Prodestants. The Catholic vs. Prodestant schism is almost exactly analogous to Sunni vs. Shi'i Islam, by the way.
3.) Ever heard of the Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire? The Norman Invasion? The Crusades? The Spanis Inquisition? Manifest Destiny? We should be looking at our own past before we look condescendingly at the muslim past. It's possible that it's not the expansion of their religion that they seek; more, in the same way we see the expansion of the Roman Empire, or Manifest Destiny, or the conquest and carving up of Africa, it is the expansion of their culture. Who's to say they're wrong for wanting this, even if the methods are wrong? And who's to say the western world isn't guilty of it, on far worse scale, for far longer? It's just that the roman empire didn't have CNN.
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism?
I'll tell you what we do:
We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!
Trust me on this one. I know it's romantic to say "Never give in to terrorists", and all that, but I know what I'm talking about. I do actually hold a recent degree in History, and I did take several courses on the History of the Middle East, including a 2 semester sequence on Middle East history, and an in-depth study of The Arab-Israeli conflict. I've studied the history; I've read the origional source documents and researched the events. I've debated the merits of several systems of governance in post-Saddam Iraq.
What we're not doing, because we're typical American blowhards, is we're not listening to what the terrorists are saying. If we're going to bomb them, and arrest them, and occupy their land, as if they were a country, then we ought to at least find out what they want.
What Osama Bin Ladin wants is what the vast majority of Muslims (especially Sunnis) want: The U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War I, we never left. This is sacreligious to most Muslims - they take the sacredness of the land much more seriously than we do. It would be akin to Russia building a military base on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, or Korea setting up a forward outpost right next to George Washington's Boyhood home; and even these don't do the feeling justice.
But, we're all too busy listening to Bill O'Rielly, who proudly proclaims that these quote "radical islamists" endquote (islamists isn't a word; Islam is the religion, Muslim is the word describing the follower - we don't say Judeaists, we say "Jews") are trying to kill us and our wives and children, and convert all of us to their radical islamist ideals, which is just plain false. They just want to be left the fuck alone.
No one is asking "Why do the terrorists attack us?", and possibly as important, "Why do they have popular support?". We assume we know the answer - "because they're all fucking nuts". The answer is:
"The terrorists attack us because we give them reason to attack us" and "They have popular support because we constantly prove what the terrorist figureheads say is right, time after time".
If we don't give them reason to attack us, then their attacks will become less and less frequent, AND they will not have the popular support of the Muslim people. If we pull out of Saudi Arabia, stop unilaterally supporting Israel*, and leave Iraq, and basically leave the Muslim world alone, what grounds will they have to attack us? If we do all that, and then an attack comes, the world (including Muslim nations) will know we're innocent, and use peer pressure to stop those attacks.
The terrorists accomplished their goals on 9/11/01, America. What were their goals? To provoke a war. To make America hated and despised. To bankrupt the nation. To bring about the death of civil liberty, and the birth of a police state. They don't want to kill us. They want to make us afraid.
Mission Accomplished.
~Will
*Think pulling out of the Gaza Strip was a good thing? The other half of the deal went like this: "We'll pull out of the Gaza strip, but we're denying right-of-return rights to Palestinian refugees". So, now we have 15 million Palestinians who are stateless. The UN has repeatedly tried to censure Israel for the things it constantly does to the Palestinians; but it can't, because censure requires votes from all 5 members on the UN Security council: The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. Guess who constantly vetoes any anti-Israel measure?
Do you know how many times I've had to explain to so-and-so that their computer they purchased at Best Buy with XPHome and brought to work can't be joined to the domain? That it isn't going to be able to use Exchange-based Outlook?
This is a real common problem for us ground-pounders who support small-to-medium businesses. For example, a lot of the clients I deal with started out with a simple workgroup, and have since wanted to upgrade to a 2003 SBServer in order to gain access to Exchange, centralized file storage, and centralized user management. But, sice they bought their computers from CompUSA, they have to now buy all new computers, with a $160 OS. Or pay hourly to upgrade from XPHome to Pro, plus the $99 upgrade. Real Estate offices are notorius for this - agents usually buy their own computers for use in the office.
Making more versions of windows is only going to compound this issue. Additionally, you're going to get users who expect certain things to be in the OS, and will call and ask when they aren't. Or, how about "removing media player from the pro version"?? You don't charge *more* for a product, and strip things out of it.
This is going to be an end-user support nightmare. When they don't understand now that there are two versions, and the differences between them, what's going to happen when there are 6 or 7 available?
Of course the open source advocate in me says use sendmail/qmail but those would probably be more painful to scale to the size you are talking about
I'm forced to agree with you here. Qmail is a fantastic MX; it is lightweight, secure, and easy to understand.... but...
As much as I love qmail, and I do, I can see it scaling very well up to about 40,000 (and maybe 100k if you strech your hardware) users on your average box (say, Dual Xeon 2.0Ghz, 4GB ram). Unfortunately, I don't remember any blindingly easy way to split the duties of qmail up across multiple servers, so the only way to scale it up by a factor of 10 would probably be to get a SunFire or some comparable 8 or 16 (or more) processor / 32GB RAM system and compile it to be multithreaded. Qmail should scale to multiple threads easy (it's nothing if not a series of tiny programs doing small jobs), but throwing down that kind of hardware and the time to get it configured right for that arch is going to be cumbersome.
And even at that, you're probably looking at a separate database server that's equally as beefy, and a fiberchannel SAN. And then, another set of those for redundancy.
I thought about that, and how much I would love to admin a qmail system, but... high availablity and a million users, even given qmail's traditionally lightweight footprint... we're talking probably a quarter million worth of hardware ($40,000 X 3 servers X 2 installations, probably), and a lot of headaches. If you're going to spend that cash, you might as well ask IBM or Unisys to come in and do it for you, and then you can blame them if it screws up.
Or, for a quarter million, you could probably just buy 200 $1000 1-U cheapie servers, cluster them, use arrowpoint routers, and use any MX (and by any MX, I mean any MX other than sendmail).
Then, what you should do is set up a poker league. We have one here in my hometown (surburban DC, if you're in the area). We play every other friday, $20 buyin tournament, and stats are tracked across weeks. There's cash games before and after if anyone's interested. But, basically, it's a way to say - Once every 2 weeks, budget yourself $20, play poker, and hang out with friends and drink beer.
That's the way to play. I used to play online, and I didn't even mind losing $50 over the course of a month or two, until I realized that I could lose $50 to my friends and mooch their beer, and actually have a good time and get out of the house.
Dude, get 7zip. Seriously. It integrates into windows explorer shell; just right click on the.rar file and select "extract here". Brings up a window with a progress bar, and then it's done. No fuss, no extra clicks, no questions or annoy screens.
Yeah, not to be elitest, but it pisses me off nowadays when I don't have 7zip installed on a computer I'm working on. I carry it with me on my thumb drive.
I'm just so used to "right click; Extract here", and having it work for so many file formats. Seriously, I hardly ever compress something unless it's on my server, and then it's gzip via command line, but in windows, there's no substitute.
I was definately playing "Rise of the Triad" in 1996/1997.
I remember the shrooms powerup - the screen went dizzy and all the characters were multi-colored. It was nothing I had ever seen before. In a video game.
Oh, yeah, I'm completely frustrated with MS in all things except basic domain administration. I have to say, I'd rather admin Active directory than LDAP + Whatever else. I don't have too much of a problem with centralized policies, etc.
But, good lord, for anything that touches the internet... be still my beating heart, why oh why does microsoft suck so very, very much. DNS, HTTP, FTP, mail.... all... painful.
Basically, I left the Unix world because that was the job I was using to pay my way through college. It wasn't paying a lot, and it was only 20 hours a week. I left school and knew I could get a job at my present employer, because I had a few friends at the job.
Oh, and the history degree... It doesn't fit with all my computer training and focus. When I came to school, I wanted to do CS or Comp. Engineering, but I couldn't do the math - they both require 4 semesters of Calc (differential, integral, multivariable, and diff. equations), and I couldn't wrap my head around it. So after screwing up my GPA on a bunch of engineering classes, I decided I just didn't have the brainwaves to do the math, but I didn't want to give up on college. So I studied something that I loved: History. I basically wanted to get an education for the knowledge's sake, not for the profit potential (something that I think is lacking somewhat these days).
I understand what you're saying; and I would never try to support my resume on certs alone. I think that I have enough experience to back it up, and I deal with supporting MS products, as well as a whole crapload of 3rd party products.
Not to mention 3 years as a Linux/Solaris admin. I'd MUCH, MUCH rather be a linux admin again, trust me.
William George Dunn
spam@dunnclan.net 11402 Chinquapin Way Fredericksburg, VA 22407 (540) 429-XXXX mobile / (540) 785-XXXX home
Education:
Virginia Tech: Blacksburg, VA 1999-2004 * Bachelor of Arts in History
Training & Certification:
Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft Certified Desktop Support Technician
Following the Microsoft Certified Systems
Administrator on Windows Server 2003 track
Work Experience:
Infinity Computers
* Fredericksburg, VA; 2004 - Present * Overview: On-site Tech Support, PC Trouble Shooting and Repair, Custom Server System Builds and Maintenance, Customer Service, Telephone Tech Support, Custom Desktop System Builds and Maintenance, Network Design, Deployment, Cabling, Wireless Installation and Maintenance, Phone and Intercom Wiring * Built, configured, and maintained 2 Domain Name Servers running Linux for Infinity Computers and its customers. * Completed over 300 Cat 5e/6 network runs and cable terminations for clients including residential/home offices, local church/charities, and professional sites. Complete installation and maintenance of wired networks and wireless networks, including WEP and WPA-PSK networks. * Installed different tape drives and archival devices in office machines ranging from Windows 95 through Windows Server 2003 using Backup Exec, Microsoft Backup, Veritas, Stomp and other software, as well as hardware RAID configurations. * Experience with a wide range of hardware, including laptop repair, server maintenance, and end user computer support, as well as a wide variety of software applications, including office suites and financial software.
Netmar Web hosting
* Blacksburg, VA; 2001 - 2004 * Overview: Systems Administrator for a network of over 80 computers running primarily Solaris / SunOS and Linux. Maintain connectivity through multiple T-1 highspeed connections at all times, including 24 hour on call support. Design, implement, install, and configure new network segments, new servers, and new software. Answer tech support phone calls and emails, and perform routine maintenance to ensure the integrity of the network. Become familiar with new versions of Solaris and new distributions of Linux in order to better help customers. * Designed and implemented the Netmar.com website, including graphic design, layout, scripting, secure shopping cart, and maintenance. * Experience with Gentoo, RedHat, Fedora, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, Solaris 5.5 through Solaris9, Slackware, and others. Experience compiling optimized linux kernels.
Best Buy
* Fredericksburg, VA; 1998-2001 * Overview: Computer Product Specialist. Assisted customers in making decisions about their computer needs; sold over $1,000,000 in computer related hardware and software. * Trained new employees on customer relations and standard operating procedure.
Interdisciplinary Skills:
* Experience with Network, Phone and other wiring, including patch panels, wall terminations, 66-blocks, and basic fiber optic networking. * Phone and on-site helpdesk and troubleshooting * Proficiency with Desktop and Laptop PC repair/upgrades, as well as new system builds. * Experience with multiple Office Suite Packages, including Microsoft Office, Corel office suite, and OpenOffice.org * Exposure to many programming languages and styles: Experience with MS-DOS scripting and bash/csh shell scripting, as well as PHP and MySQL.
Laugh, but it's true. Having the MCP or MCSA gets you past the first round of minions who are just throwing out resumes that don't have X, Y, and Z (for example, the HR guy will trash the resume if you don't have "A Microsoft Cert", "2 years experience", and "A college degree". Once you're past the automotons, you get to the actual tech guys who interview you to feel out your actual skills.
Another reason (and this is the reason I have one) - the company I work for is a "Microsoft Preferred Partner", and in order to be a partner, all your techs have to be microsoft certified.
And even at that, I still see value in certifications. Yes, it's possible to pass the tests and not learn anything (like those cert-mills teach you to do). However; it's also possible to think you know everything and not be able to pass the test.
I know there are probably a lot of MCSE's on slashdot, but ask yourself: How many do you personally know. I'm MCP / MCDST and 1 test from MCSA, and I've been working on the tests for like a year (though I haven't looked at any materials on the tests in 6 months). But, it's unlikely that an MCSE really can get all the tests passed while knowing nothing. I mean, you have to pass:
*Windows XP *Windows Server 2003 *Installing and implementing a Server 2003 Network Infrastructure *Planning and maintaining a 2003 server network infrastructure *Planning and Maintaining a 2003 Active Directory infrastructure *(Designing and Implementing an AD network OR designing a secure windows 2003 server network), *and one elective, which ranges from MS SQL server, to ISA server, to exchange, to MS solutions Framework.
It's unlikely that someone will pass all those tests, and know nothing.
Woah, wait a sec. I didn't mean "who cares?" as in let's trash the planet. I think all reasonable precautions should be taken. In fact, I think people should drive more gas-efficient vehicles and recycle/reuse/reudce, etc. I do (we're a 2 honda family).
All I'm saying is the planet is more important to us than we are to it. I don't think we should go for any of those drastic changes that a lot of people advocate.
Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.
Heh.
Herein lies all the problems with global destruction theories: The planet will continue to exist. Life will live here. It's human existance that's in trouble, and it's not going to happen in my lifetime, so who cares?
Besides, if it ever gets too inhabitable on this planet, we'll just move somewhere else. Hell, these greenhouse gasses are a good thing on mars!
Oh, for fuck's sake. Way to write back addressing the points of my post. As I'm sure you'd know if you'd been reading my posts on slashdot since 1999, my username is tounge-in-cheek. Yes, I do understand that the movie hackers has very little computer content. Yes, I realize that zerocool in the movie was an actor, not a real hacker. Yes, I happen to *still* like the movie, even in all of it's shortcomings, even like 7 or 8 years later.
But, you don't have anything useful to say, so you've attacked my username choice. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
RMS claiming that Linux couldn't exist without GNU's tools is like Bridgestone claiming that Ford couldn't exist without their tires. Because Linus happened to use the GNU tools, RMS takes it as an affirmation that his tools were indespensible, when the reality was that they were simply available.
RMS is a bad programmer and a political blowhard. Yes, his GNU group (of which he is only a part) has produced GCC and binutils; but hell, it took 'em 25 years to get to the point where their microkernel is even remotely stable, and even then it's pretty much worthless; no self respecting sys admin would run GNU/Herd in a production environment.
RMS has said some things that are intelligent over the years, but jesus christ, 95% of what he says is just off the wall ranting about how he wants everyone to recognize him and all that he's done.
GNU fucked around for 10 years before linux saying "Some day, we're going to write our own OS, completely from scratch, including utilities, and a compiler, and an awesome kernel, which is the core, indespensible part of the OS, and it's going to be awesome". Then, they wrote the utilities and the compiler (the add-ons to their mythical OS). They couldn't (can't?) get their kernel to work (probably in part due to the microkernel design - even a look at today's GNU website lists features planned but not yet implemented in the kernel related to this). So Linus comes along, writes the brains, core, and main part of the OS. He uses the GNU compiler and a couple of utilities, because they were available, and so he won't have to write his own. And then GNU picks up Linux and hails that their GNU operating system is complete, and is called "GNU/Linux". Wait, what? You wrote a couple of utilities, a bad text editor, and you took 10+ years to do it, and you're incapable of writing your own kernel, and *you've* developed an operating system? No, no you haven't.
RMS and the GNU Zealots are a pretentious bunch of blowhards, and that's the way it's going to stay. We all appreciate GCC, but we all also wish that they would all just shut the fuck up.
Hey, thanks for proving my point, asshat. Congratulations. You're part of the problem.
Guess what? If you had to buy a commercial unix distro and then replace the (provided, paid for) userspace with the GNU tools, then the tools were a solution looking for a problem.
If you say "Linux", 1.) Everyone has some idea what you mean, or at least everyone who's used a computer a moderate amount and watches CNN; and 2.) if someone asks you "What's Linux mean?", you can say, "Well, it's an operating system, written by this guy named 'Linus', hence 'Linux', because it was intended to be like Unix, but free."
If you say "GNU/Linux", and someone asks you "What's GNU", or if they know a bit about linux, maybe, "Is GNU a distribution?", you have to explain to them that "GNU means 'GNU's Not Unix', and you watch as their eyes roll back in their head because 1.) Recursive acronyms are not funny, they're not cool, they're grammatically incorrect and retarted, and 2.) the person you're talking to now feels like, rather than some professional product, the whole thing is some dumb fucking nerd's toy project, such that they can name it with an in-joke.
Here's a quote from RMS:
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is not the operating system. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call ``Linux''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.
This is the WHOLE fucking problem with the adoption of Linux: Elitist pendantic assholes with nothing better to do than pound their head against the wall until everyone else catches on to their rhythm.
Calling it "GNU/Linux" does not take away the ambiguity of it; it only adds to the confusion. Why do you think it's not "Explorer/WindowsNT", or "Darwin/BSD"? Because that's just more confusing. Plus, as much as RMS Keeps up with the whole line of arguing "Linux is just the kernel, the OS is almost entirely GNU", the fact remains that Linux is the OS, and before Linux came along, GNU at best was a set of solutions looking for a problem. Hell, they've been trying to write their kernel for 15 years, and it still doesn't even have a competent memory management system; Linus used the GNU tools so that he could save time and not write his own - I'm sure that, at this point, had he known all the bullshit that RMS would cause, he would have just written his own compiler, or used borland's, or whatever.
While I appreciate some things that RMS has done, he's done, in my eyes, an equal amount to divide the linux movement. The whole idea of "if you don't like it, fork it" may sound good to a filthy hippy, but in reality, having 29831 implementations of everything, with 289 different licences, is really just hurting the community. "Should I use Xfree86 or X.org?" Depends on these couple of licencing issues. "What about nano v. pico?" Licencing issues.
Too many cooks in the kitchen; too many elitist programmers who's way of doing it is the only acceptable way. Thank god Linus is the figurehead of Linux, because he's levelheaded and pragmatic.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
Oh. My. God.
Seriously, man. I took a full semester course on exactly what you're talking about, and you could not POSSIBLY be more wrong.
I didn't want to get into the Palestinian Mandate and British rule, etc, because most people aren't familiar with what it said. Unfortunately, you seem to be only partially familiar, which is actually worse.
There were always Jews in the British Mandate, and before that too. When Britain ended its colony, it was proposed that the land be divvied up. Part Arab, part Jewish. The Jews agreed. The Arabs thought they'd destroy Israel and take the land. They lost. People became displaced. That's the Arab's fault. Not Israel.
The Palestinian Mandate included separate states for Jews and Arabs. When the Brittish left, the Jews launched a war and a land grab, or what do you think the 1948 war was?? The Jews played nice until Britain washed their hands of the situation, and then Israel rolled tanks into the Golan heights, the Gaza strip, and the West Bank. The Arabs had rejected the plan because it gave the Jews, who had something on the order of 20% of the population of Palestine, over 50% of the land, and over 75% of the arable land, which they figured would not be a good deal.
Then, there's the 6 days war, where the Jews invaded and captured the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Under what authority?!?
Now the poor Palestinians are used as pawns by the Arabs who know they can't beat Israel in a war.
Because of military sales and financing from the U.S.
It was an Arab political reason to let all the Palestinians in Jordan and Egypt and Lebanon fester. Why should Israel pay the price?
These other countries can't support the influx of refugees. Not to mention, these people's homes have been destroyed and occupied by the IDF and Jewish zionists. Why shouldn't Israel pay the price? If Israel wants to own the land and be the government, it should find it's citizens housing, rather than chase them out.
As to why Muslims blame all their ills on America and Israel the answer is simple. Look at they state they live in. No freedom of speech, no accountable government. Run by an oil rich elite who let their people suffer... so what do the authorities and state controlled papers do - blame it all on Israel - if you blame the outside, maybe people won't question what's happening inside.
Iraq was the most progressive Muslim state, other than Turkey (post Ataturk), in the world until the U.S. invaded. Women had freedom, education, and citizenship. Saudi Arabian citizens enjoy one of the best qualities of life in the world, due to handouts from their super-elite rich government.
Look at a map - compare Israel to the Arab world. Compare the number of Jews to Muslims. Compare the natural resources the Arabs have with that of Israel (I think they have dates there, along with the newest Intel dual processor and advanced HIV research...) and ask yourself if Israel really can be the cause of so many problems in the word?
YES, YES THEY ARE. I'll even say that the Jews deserve a place on the planet where they won't be discriminated against - throughout history, people have persecuted Jews, and I think that there may be some validity to the Zionist arguement that the only safe place for a Jew is a Jewish state. But, given that, why do they think that they are entitled to THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PLACE ON EARTH, even when there are other groups already fighting over it? Why not create a Jewish state in Europe, where most Jews were displaced from? Why intentionally pick a controversial location? If the reason is "Sacred Land" or "History", then what gives them more right than the Arabs?
As far as I see it, the existance of the state of Israel is one of, if not the, major cause for poor relations and tension between "The Western World" and "The Middle East".
I don't know how to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I know we're not going forward - we're going backwards.
The American-influenced world sees the Israeli conflict with very rose colored glasses; as do of course most Jews. I mean no disrespect to Jews or the Jewish religion; however, for starters, what does give Israel the right to exist?
What if the entire population of Native Americans got together, formed a loose government, and took over manhattan? After all, it's their ancestral home, they were displaced by filthy PaleFaces. Do they have a right to create a new state in Manhattan?
Israel was not a state from 1300 B.C. to 1945 A.D. - over 3,000 years. What gives the Jews the right to displace 3,000 years of Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and Arab rule, on a whim, because they feel they're entitled? Because it's sacred ground? It's sacred to the Christians, too (crusades), as well as the Muslims (dome of the rock, among other places).
Yes, I am talking about those "3rd generation refugees". 40% of which are in Jordan, and 38% of which are still in occupied areas of Israel, with 10% of them in both Lebanon and Syria. These people deserve a place to live.
I'm just saying - we always hear about the atrocities that the Palestinians visit on the Israelis. What we don't hear is the reverse of the situation, and we don't hear it because they're classified as military security operations when Israel does them, and Terrorism when Palestinians respond in the only ways available to them.
Open your mind. Israel is not blameless, and years of persecution do not give Jews the right to turn around and do it to others.
This is one of the primary reasons Muslims hate America - we support Israel's actions.
~Will
Yeah, I've thought about emmigrating to Canada; but unfortunately, it's one of those situations where there's several things working against me. For one, it would prove the war hawks right when they call me and people like me unpatriotic. For two, it's hard to immegrate to Canada; you have to already have a job in order to get a work visa, and I'm not sure how hard it is to become a naturalized citizen...
I want to say that I respect your opinion before I say anything else, and that you've expressed yourself eloquently.
However, I just want to point out a few things:
1.) So what if islam converts people? Granted, "by the sword" is bad (we'll get to that in a sec), but millions of christians could learn from the fervor with which many muslims follow their religion.
2.) Sectarian violence happens in many other religions. Hindus versus Buddhists, for instance. or, to put it much closer to home, Catholics and Prodestants. The Catholic vs. Prodestant schism is almost exactly analogous to Sunni vs. Shi'i Islam, by the way.
3.) Ever heard of the Roman Empire? The Holy Roman Empire? The Norman Invasion? The Crusades? The Spanis Inquisition? Manifest Destiny? We should be looking at our own past before we look condescendingly at the muslim past. It's possible that it's not the expansion of their religion that they seek; more, in the same way we see the expansion of the Roman Empire, or Manifest Destiny, or the conquest and carving up of Africa, it is the expansion of their culture. Who's to say they're wrong for wanting this, even if the methods are wrong? And who's to say the western world isn't guilty of it, on far worse scale, for far longer? It's just that the roman empire didn't have CNN.
~Will
What do we do, aside from wringing our hands and saying we can't kill large number of civilians to fight terrorism?
I'll tell you what we do:
We give them what they want! We get the fuck out of Saudi Arabia!
Trust me on this one. I know it's romantic to say "Never give in to terrorists", and all that, but I know what I'm talking about. I do actually hold a recent degree in History, and I did take several courses on the History of the Middle East, including a 2 semester sequence on Middle East history, and an in-depth study of The Arab-Israeli conflict. I've studied the history; I've read the origional source documents and researched the events. I've debated the merits of several systems of governance in post-Saddam Iraq.
What we're not doing, because we're typical American blowhards, is we're not listening to what the terrorists are saying. If we're going to bomb them, and arrest them, and occupy their land, as if they were a country, then we ought to at least find out what they want.
What Osama Bin Ladin wants is what the vast majority of Muslims (especially Sunnis) want: The U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After Gulf War I, we never left. This is sacreligious to most Muslims - they take the sacredness of the land much more seriously than we do. It would be akin to Russia building a military base on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, or Korea setting up a forward outpost right next to George Washington's Boyhood home; and even these don't do the feeling justice.
But, we're all too busy listening to Bill O'Rielly, who proudly proclaims that these quote "radical islamists" endquote (islamists isn't a word; Islam is the religion, Muslim is the word describing the follower - we don't say Judeaists, we say "Jews") are trying to kill us and our wives and children, and convert all of us to their radical islamist ideals, which is just plain false. They just want to be left the fuck alone.
No one is asking "Why do the terrorists attack us?", and possibly as important, "Why do they have popular support?". We assume we know the answer - "because they're all fucking nuts". The answer is:
"The terrorists attack us because we give them reason to attack us"
and
"They have popular support because we constantly prove what the terrorist figureheads say is right, time after time".
If we don't give them reason to attack us, then their attacks will become less and less frequent, AND they will not have the popular support of the Muslim people. If we pull out of Saudi Arabia, stop unilaterally supporting Israel*, and leave Iraq, and basically leave the Muslim world alone, what grounds will they have to attack us? If we do all that, and then an attack comes, the world (including Muslim nations) will know we're innocent, and use peer pressure to stop those attacks.
The terrorists accomplished their goals on 9/11/01, America. What were their goals? To provoke a war. To make America hated and despised. To bankrupt the nation. To bring about the death of civil liberty, and the birth of a police state. They don't want to kill us. They want to make us afraid.
Mission Accomplished.
~Will
*Think pulling out of the Gaza Strip was a good thing? The other half of the deal went like this: "We'll pull out of the Gaza strip, but we're denying right-of-return rights to Palestinian refugees". So, now we have 15 million Palestinians who are stateless. The UN has repeatedly tried to censure Israel for the things it constantly does to the Palestinians; but it can't, because censure requires votes from all 5 members on the UN Security council: The US, the UK, France, Russia, and China. Guess who constantly vetoes any anti-Israel measure?
So, is Slackware Linux 10.0 Christian Edition daemon-free?
It's not that simple, man.
Do you know how many times I've had to explain to so-and-so that their computer they purchased at Best Buy with XPHome and brought to work can't be joined to the domain? That it isn't going to be able to use Exchange-based Outlook?
This is a real common problem for us ground-pounders who support small-to-medium businesses. For example, a lot of the clients I deal with started out with a simple workgroup, and have since wanted to upgrade to a 2003 SBServer in order to gain access to Exchange, centralized file storage, and centralized user management. But, sice they bought their computers from CompUSA, they have to now buy all new computers, with a $160 OS. Or pay hourly to upgrade from XPHome to Pro, plus the $99 upgrade. Real Estate offices are notorius for this - agents usually buy their own computers for use in the office.
Making more versions of windows is only going to compound this issue. Additionally, you're going to get users who expect certain things to be in the OS, and will call and ask when they aren't. Or, how about "removing media player from the pro version"?? You don't charge *more* for a product, and strip things out of it.
This is going to be an end-user support nightmare. When they don't understand now that there are two versions, and the differences between them, what's going to happen when there are 6 or 7 available?
~Will
Of course the open source advocate in me says
use sendmail/qmail but those would probably be
more painful to scale to the size you are talking
about
I'm forced to agree with you here. Qmail is a fantastic MX; it is lightweight, secure, and easy to understand.... but...
As much as I love qmail, and I do, I can see it scaling very well up to about 40,000 (and maybe 100k if you strech your hardware) users on your average box (say, Dual Xeon 2.0Ghz, 4GB ram). Unfortunately, I don't remember any blindingly easy way to split the duties of qmail up across multiple servers, so the only way to scale it up by a factor of 10 would probably be to get a SunFire or some comparable 8 or 16 (or more) processor / 32GB RAM system and compile it to be multithreaded. Qmail should scale to multiple threads easy (it's nothing if not a series of tiny programs doing small jobs), but throwing down that kind of hardware and the time to get it configured right for that arch is going to be cumbersome.
And even at that, you're probably looking at a separate database server that's equally as beefy, and a fiberchannel SAN. And then, another set of those for redundancy.
I thought about that, and how much I would love to admin a qmail system, but... high availablity and a million users, even given qmail's traditionally lightweight footprint... we're talking probably a quarter million worth of hardware ($40,000 X 3 servers X 2 installations, probably), and a lot of headaches. If you're going to spend that cash, you might as well ask IBM or Unisys to come in and do it for you, and then you can blame them if it screws up.
Or, for a quarter million, you could probably just buy 200 $1000 1-U cheapie servers, cluster them, use arrowpoint routers, and use any MX (and by any MX, I mean any MX other than sendmail).
~Will
Then, what you should do is set up a poker league. We have one here in my hometown (surburban DC, if you're in the area). We play every other friday, $20 buyin tournament, and stats are tracked across weeks. There's cash games before and after if anyone's interested. But, basically, it's a way to say - Once every 2 weeks, budget yourself $20, play poker, and hang out with friends and drink beer.
That's the way to play. I used to play online, and I didn't even mind losing $50 over the course of a month or two, until I realized that I could lose $50 to my friends and mooch their beer, and actually have a good time and get out of the house.
~Will
Dude, get 7zip. Seriously. It integrates into windows explorer shell; just right click on the .rar file and select "extract here". Brings up a window with a progress bar, and then it's done. No fuss, no extra clicks, no questions or annoy screens.
Yeah, not to be elitest, but it pisses me off nowadays when I don't have 7zip installed on a computer I'm working on. I carry it with me on my thumb drive.
I'm just so used to "right click; Extract here", and having it work for so many file formats. Seriously, I hardly ever compress something unless it's on my server, and then it's gzip via command line, but in windows, there's no substitute.
~w
I was definately playing "Rise of the Triad" in 1996/1997.
I remember the shrooms powerup - the screen went dizzy and all the characters were multi-colored. It was nothing I had ever seen before. In a video game.
I've said too much.
Oh, yeah, I'm completely frustrated with MS in all things except basic domain administration. I have to say, I'd rather admin Active directory than LDAP + Whatever else. I don't have too much of a problem with centralized policies, etc.
But, good lord, for anything that touches the internet... be still my beating heart, why oh why does microsoft suck so very, very much. DNS, HTTP, FTP, mail.... all... painful.
Basically, I left the Unix world because that was the job I was using to pay my way through college. It wasn't paying a lot, and it was only 20 hours a week. I left school and knew I could get a job at my present employer, because I had a few friends at the job.
Oh, and the history degree... It doesn't fit with all my computer training and focus. When I came to school, I wanted to do CS or Comp. Engineering, but I couldn't do the math - they both require 4 semesters of Calc (differential, integral, multivariable, and diff. equations), and I couldn't wrap my head around it. So after screwing up my GPA on a bunch of engineering classes, I decided I just didn't have the brainwaves to do the math, but I didn't want to give up on college. So I studied something that I loved: History. I basically wanted to get an education for the knowledge's sake, not for the profit potential (something that I think is lacking somewhat these days).
Anyway, now you know me.
~W
I understand what you're saying; and I would never try to support my resume on certs alone. I think that I have enough experience to back it up, and I deal with supporting MS products, as well as a whole crapload of 3rd party products.
Not to mention 3 years as a Linux/Solaris admin. I'd MUCH, MUCH rather be a linux admin again, trust me.
Wife and kid to support.
They (like most companies) value experience above certs, but the cert is a baseline. That's all.
Laugh, but it's true. Having the MCP or MCSA gets you past the first round of minions who are just throwing out resumes that don't have X, Y, and Z (for example, the HR guy will trash the resume if you don't have "A Microsoft Cert", "2 years experience", and "A college degree". Once you're past the automotons, you get to the actual tech guys who interview you to feel out your actual skills.
Another reason (and this is the reason I have one) - the company I work for is a "Microsoft Preferred Partner", and in order to be a partner, all your techs have to be microsoft certified.
And even at that, I still see value in certifications. Yes, it's possible to pass the tests and not learn anything (like those cert-mills teach you to do). However; it's also possible to think you know everything and not be able to pass the test.
I know there are probably a lot of MCSE's on slashdot, but ask yourself: How many do you personally know. I'm MCP / MCDST and 1 test from MCSA, and I've been working on the tests for like a year (though I haven't looked at any materials on the tests in 6 months). But, it's unlikely that an MCSE really can get all the tests passed while knowing nothing. I mean, you have to pass:
*Windows XP
*Windows Server 2003
*Installing and implementing a Server 2003 Network Infrastructure
*Planning and maintaining a 2003 server network infrastructure
*Planning and Maintaining a 2003 Active Directory infrastructure
*(Designing and Implementing an AD network OR designing a secure windows 2003 server network), *and one elective, which ranges from MS SQL server, to ISA server, to exchange, to MS solutions Framework.
It's unlikely that someone will pass all those tests, and know nothing.
~Will
Woah, wait a sec. I didn't mean "who cares?" as in let's trash the planet. I think all reasonable precautions should be taken. In fact, I think people should drive more gas-efficient vehicles and recycle/reuse/reudce, etc. I do (we're a 2 honda family).
All I'm saying is the planet is more important to us than we are to it. I don't think we should go for any of those drastic changes that a lot of people advocate.
~Will
Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.
Heh.
Herein lies all the problems with global destruction theories: The planet will continue to exist. Life will live here. It's human existance that's in trouble, and it's not going to happen in my lifetime, so who cares?
Besides, if it ever gets too inhabitable on this planet, we'll just move somewhere else. Hell, these greenhouse gasses are a good thing on mars!
Oh, for fuck's sake. Way to write back addressing the points of my post. As I'm sure you'd know if you'd been reading my posts on slashdot since 1999, my username is tounge-in-cheek. Yes, I do understand that the movie hackers has very little computer content. Yes, I realize that zerocool in the movie was an actor, not a real hacker. Yes, I happen to *still* like the movie, even in all of it's shortcomings, even like 7 or 8 years later.
But, you don't have anything useful to say, so you've attacked my username choice. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Exactly, thank you.
RMS claiming that Linux couldn't exist without GNU's tools is like Bridgestone claiming that Ford couldn't exist without their tires. Because Linus happened to use the GNU tools, RMS takes it as an affirmation that his tools were indespensible, when the reality was that they were simply available.
RMS is a bad programmer and a political blowhard. Yes, his GNU group (of which he is only a part) has produced GCC and binutils; but hell, it took 'em 25 years to get to the point where their microkernel is even remotely stable, and even then it's pretty much worthless; no self respecting sys admin would run GNU/Herd in a production environment.
RMS has said some things that are intelligent over the years, but jesus christ, 95% of what he says is just off the wall ranting about how he wants everyone to recognize him and all that he's done.
GNU fucked around for 10 years before linux saying "Some day, we're going to write our own OS, completely from scratch, including utilities, and a compiler, and an awesome kernel, which is the core, indespensible part of the OS, and it's going to be awesome". Then, they wrote the utilities and the compiler (the add-ons to their mythical OS). They couldn't (can't?) get their kernel to work (probably in part due to the microkernel design - even a look at today's GNU website lists features planned but not yet implemented in the kernel related to this). So Linus comes along, writes the brains, core, and main part of the OS. He uses the GNU compiler and a couple of utilities, because they were available, and so he won't have to write his own. And then GNU picks up Linux and hails that their GNU operating system is complete, and is called "GNU/Linux". Wait, what? You wrote a couple of utilities, a bad text editor, and you took 10+ years to do it, and you're incapable of writing your own kernel, and *you've* developed an operating system? No, no you haven't.
RMS and the GNU Zealots are a pretentious bunch of blowhards, and that's the way it's going to stay. We all appreciate GCC, but we all also wish that they would all just shut the fuck up.
~Will
Hey, thanks for proving my point, asshat. Congratulations. You're part of the problem.
Guess what? If you had to buy a commercial unix distro and then replace the (provided, paid for) userspace with the GNU tools, then the tools were a solution looking for a problem.
One i know of is modern toilets, they use a hell of a lot less water than they used to.
Not when you have to flush them 6 times to get everything down.
Yeah, but here's the point I've tried to make:
GNU is a retarted word.
If you say "Linux", 1.) Everyone has some idea what you mean, or at least everyone who's used a computer a moderate amount and watches CNN; and 2.) if someone asks you "What's Linux mean?", you can say, "Well, it's an operating system, written by this guy named 'Linus', hence 'Linux', because it was intended to be like Unix, but free."
If you say "GNU/Linux", and someone asks you "What's GNU", or if they know a bit about linux, maybe, "Is GNU a distribution?", you have to explain to them that "GNU means 'GNU's Not Unix', and you watch as their eyes roll back in their head because 1.) Recursive acronyms are not funny, they're not cool, they're grammatically incorrect and retarted, and 2.) the person you're talking to now feels like, rather than some professional product, the whole thing is some dumb fucking nerd's toy project, such that they can name it with an in-joke.
Here's a quote from RMS:
This is the WHOLE fucking problem with the adoption of Linux: Elitist pendantic assholes with nothing better to do than pound their head against the wall until everyone else catches on to their rhythm.
Calling it "GNU/Linux" does not take away the ambiguity of it; it only adds to the confusion. Why do you think it's not "Explorer/WindowsNT", or "Darwin/BSD"? Because that's just more confusing. Plus, as much as RMS Keeps up with the whole line of arguing "Linux is just the kernel, the OS is almost entirely GNU", the fact remains that Linux is the OS, and before Linux came along, GNU at best was a set of solutions looking for a problem. Hell, they've been trying to write their kernel for 15 years, and it still doesn't even have a competent memory management system; Linus used the GNU tools so that he could save time and not write his own - I'm sure that, at this point, had he known all the bullshit that RMS would cause, he would have just written his own compiler, or used borland's, or whatever.
While I appreciate some things that RMS has done, he's done, in my eyes, an equal amount to divide the linux movement. The whole idea of "if you don't like it, fork it" may sound good to a filthy hippy, but in reality, having 29831 implementations of everything, with 289 different licences, is really just hurting the community. "Should I use Xfree86 or X.org?" Depends on these couple of licencing issues. "What about nano v. pico?" Licencing issues.
Too many cooks in the kitchen; too many elitist programmers who's way of doing it is the only acceptable way. Thank god Linus is the figurehead of Linux, because he's levelheaded and pragmatic.
~W